Search results for 'tag:British English tag:Pronouns' matching tags 'British English' and 'Pronouns'

Re: Can 'a list' be represented by plural pronoun?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:54:47 GMT

Hi Stenka

People may say what you have written in casual speech but them is not good English in this context. Put [the] things/items in order would be better. In British English it is very common to use a plural pronoun or verb to refer to a whole that consists of many people even though the actual subject is singular. Some examples:

England are winning the match.

The crew were on board.

Re: I need help!

Kooyeen — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:52:49 GMT

Hi,
I think "so can mine" is ok. "Mine" is a pronoun, so you can use it like it's a normal noun, as a subject.

"Neither do I" is ok. I think "Neither have I" is ok too in British English, but not common in the United States (American English).

Just my opinion...

Re: ultimate, sacked

Grammar Geek — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:44:17 GMT

We need examples which is very common, very tough or unusual examples may distract us from understanding the gist of what the example means.

Okay, now I understand. You have a run-on sentence.We need examples that are easy to understand. Difficult or unusual examples may distract us from understanding what the example is trying to illustrate.

She ran terribly across the road when she saw his mom was walking on the pavement, which was on the other side of/across the road. What do you mean "ran terribly" - do you mean very quickly?

Yes. Is this use incorrect?

Yes, using "terribly" in this way is incorrect.

I think you mean "walking on the sidewalk"? The pavement would BE the road and doesn't make sense to say it's on the other side of the road. And yes, "on the other side of the road."

Yes. I mean "on the sidewalk" which is a pavement in BE, I think. I know we mostly have a sidewalk on both the sides of the road. So what wrong with "on a sidewalk / pavement which was on the other side of the road"?

So in British English, the word "sidewalk"is "pavement"? In the US, the entire road surface is considered the pavement. If I am on one side of the road, it doesn't make sense to refer to the pavement as being on the other side of the road because it is the road. I would say "The sidewalk is on the other side of the road from where I'm standing" would make perfect sense to me.

Why did she need to run when she saw his mother? Have you confused the pronouns again, and do you mean her own mother? If so, then HER mom, not HIS mom, okay?

Yes, you are correct. Again, it's a typo.

Okay. So the final sentence is "She ran quickly when she saw her mother on the sidewalk on the other side of the road." I don't know if she ran toward her mother to be with her, or away so her mother would not be able to see her or catch her, but perhaps in context that would make sense.

Re: correct sentence??

Ruslana — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:29:06 GMT

From answers.com:

Speakers of some vernacular American dialects, particularly in the South, may use the possessive reflexive form hisself instead of himself (as in He cut hisself shaving) and theirselves or theirself for themselves (as in They found theirselves alone). These forms reflect the tendency of speakers of vernacular dialects to regularize irregular patterns found in the corresponding standard variety. In Standard English, the pattern of reflexive pronoun forms shows slightly irregular patterning; all forms but two are composed of the possessive form of the pronoun and âself or âselves, as in myself or ourselves. The exceptions are himself and themselves, which are formed by attaching the suffix âself/âselves to the object forms of he and they rather than their possessive forms. Speakers who use hisself and theirselves are smoothing out the pattern's inconsistencies by applying the same rule to all forms in the set. â¢ A further regularization is the use of âself regardless of number, yielding the forms ourself and theirself. Using a singular form in a plural context may seem imprecise, but the plural meaning of ourself and theirself is made clear by the presence of the plural forms ourâ and theirâ. Hisself and theirselves have origins in British English and are still prevalent today in vernacular speech in England.

I'm for the Standard English.

Re: it/ them

Bokeh — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:54:19 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
In British English nouns such as 'team' can be treated as either plural or singular.

Nona, I think this is more a question of your ear being accustomed to this type of construction rather than it being good grammar. To me, also a British native, it is unacceptable.

Nona The Brit wrote:
Wonderland Park's gardening team will offer you special growing tips. As above, the emphasis is now on who will be receiving the tips. If you come along you can get this advice. This encourages the individual receiving the invitation to attend, makes it more personal. This is how you would phrase it to make the advertising/invitations more effective.

I disagree! Every pronoun requires an antecedent and the antecedent "Fun Club members" relates to the pronoun "them", not "you". Also,this notion forces the concept that every reader must be one of the "Fun Club members".

Re: burn

nona the brit — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:35:11 GMT

Smelt is fine in British English.

Vincent you really have to get to grips with your pronouns as this is a consistent error of yours.

Male - he/his/him

Female - she/her/her

Re: (comma) that/which [American English]

Kooyeen — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:57:58 GMT

Teo wrote:

the longest river in China, that flows eastward from Tibet to the China Sea. It is also called the Yangtze.

In Standard British English, the above relative pronoun "that" should be replaced by "which".

What about American English usage?

Hi Teo,
very good question, I've always wondered about that too.
It seems that when we have a clause or sentence that "defines" the preceding sentence, we can use who (for people), which (for things), or that (for everything):
I saw the man who/that killed all those people.
I need an audio player which/that is able to read Real Media audio files.

But when we have a clause or sentence that kind of "comments" on the preceding sentence, as if it was put in parentheses, we can use who (for people), which (for things), and... and what? Like you, I've always wondered if "that" or something else was used as well.
The police were asking some people, who / that ??? / ... didn't care about the accident at all, by the way.
It's the longest river in China, which / that ??? / ... flows from Tibet tothe China Sea...

It would be good if I could use "that", I really don't like "which" much and I never use it in "restricting clauses".

(comma) that/which [American English]

Teo — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:21:33 GMT

In Longman Advanced American Dictionary (page 219), the definition of the Chang Jiang is as follows:

the longest river in China, that flows eastward from Tibet to the China Sea. It is also called the Yangtze.

In Standard British English, the above relative pronoun "that" should be replaced by "which".

What about American English usage?

Re: The group is, the group are? UK / US English Help!

nona the brit — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:09:28 GMT

We take a more flexible approach in British English and both ways (plural and singular) are seen as acceptable. It depends on how we are thinking of the 'group'.

We say 'the group is' when we are thinking of it as one collective thing but 'the group are' when we are thinking the members of the group are....

'the band is' when we are thinking of the band as a whole or 'the band are' when we are thinking about the members of the band.

It can be very useful to be able to make this distinction between the group as an entity and the members of the group. We can say 'the band are considering whether to split up' and that makes much more sense to me than 'the band is considering whether to split up' as it is the people in the band, not the band as an 'organisation', that are thinking about this.

This has been discussed widely here before - Post:57839 is a very long thread exploring the differences between American and other versions of English on their approach to this (initially started by someone driven mad by their boss's use of 'British Gas are ...', so a very similar situation).

Mr P (English) made a useful contribution to this -

I would agree that the same noun can be both a collective noun and a noun of multitude, depending on context.

To quote a Victorian grammar, 'a noun of multitude denotes the individuals of a group, and hence the verb is plural, although the noun is singular':

1. The jury consists of twelve persons (collective noun - singular).
2. The jury were divided in their opinions (noun of multitude - plural).

Perhaps the 'personal pronoun test' can help to resolve disputed cases:

3. When was Manchester Utd founded? It was founded in 1878.
4. Where do Manchester Utd play? They play at Old Trafford.

So, you see, it is perfectly acceptable and correct in some versions of English, so I doubt you will have much success in enforcing the American English view throughout an international company. You''ll just have to grit your teeth and bear it. . There are some aspects of American English that can grate on us, too.

Re: Correction of a Translation (Compulsory: British English)

Bennyman — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:52:58 GMT

Can you unpack a bit more the nuance of the colloquial Danish expression? Phrases that spring to mind in English are things like "arranged marriage", which isn't quite right, or "bartered with other plantation owners", which doesn't quite bring across the dehumanising element of treating enslaved men like animals put out to stud or women like broodmares.

Well, it basically means that a said person, be it father or slave owner, can decide to marry you away to a stranger. However, it is not quite the same as arranged marriage as that strikes me as something very fatherly or domestic.

Furthermore, to 'Marry them/her away' can be done by anyone "owning" another person, like a slave owner.

In any case, the exact translation of it, word for word: "Gifte dem bort" = "Marry them away".

So what do you think the correct translation would be?

I thought of this one:

- [pronoun] away in marriage

NB: Yes. It's hard to believe that human beings could treat their own as animals to be bartered and used for mating as if they were stud dogs.

The American Negro

In 1620 the first Negroes were shipped to the state of Virginia on the American East Coast by Dutch merchants. In the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th century large cargo loads of African Negroes - men, women and children - were sent across the Atlantic Ocean. Many died from the inhumane conditions on board the ships. The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where the men were often separated from their wives and children. The strongest men and women worked in tobacco and cotton fields in the South and at cane mills in the West Indies. Only a few â especially the beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves: looking after children, cooking and washing for the white families. The Negro families lived in small cabins and had a little piece of land, where they could grow their own vegetables and keep hens and geese. They were the plantation ownerâs property, and he could punish, sell or give them away in marriage. Many Negroes tried to run away to the North; others protested by working slowly, simulating illness or by instigating open rebellion. Quite often, the slave owners feared their own slaves. The plantation owners lived considerable distances from each other, and there were many more slaves than whites. One of the slavesâ most dangerous weapons was arson. A whole yearâs revenue could go up in smoke, if a barn full of corn or tobacco was set ablaze, and it was difficult to identify the culprits. In the 1830s and 1840s many men and women, both white and black, worked for the abolition of slavery. More and more people felt that slavery was irreconcilable with the beautiful words of the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, which states that all men are created equal and have certain rights, amongst them freedom. A lot of progress was made, and in 1865, after a long and bloody civil war, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that slavery was abolished and the Negroes free.

This looks better.